Sydney Pollack's new film, The Interpreter, annoyed me. It has the makings of a good thriller, including some very good footage of the U.N. (first film with on location footing, apparently), and some good acting. Nonetheless, the film is pretentious. As noted by the Slate review, it is contains too much backstory and overacting by the leads, who all the same are good (that's the shame -- it's good b.s., but b.s. all the same) at what they are asked to do. All the same, it robs the story of much believability and the audience of much desire to care for these characters when they are not truly real people, just oh so tragic character types.
This is the basic problem with the movie, but there are others. The ending is lame, including what is supposed to be a dramatic highlight (and unbelievable to boot). Also, the use of genocide as a plot device is distressing, since it is used so crudely. Likewise, when the chief concern of the movie is two white people (even if one was raised in the African country involved), the deaths of thousands of Africans becomes but a throwaway (including a shot of the dead bodies). Hotel Rwanda did this better and the focus was more appropriate to boot. Finally, as suggested, there was a few plot points that were unbelievable. All of this makes a continuity error especially annoying (disappearing scar, when it is no longer dramatically necessary).
I respected the talent that went into this film, I surely did, but it was sadly wasted.
Back to the real world, Joan Mariner is a Human Rights attorney, and writes about various issues related to her work over at Findlaw. Her latest is on Rumsfeld's responsibility and is worth reading as are others in the series.